National frameworks

May 12 2011, 1:43 PM by Ray Acheson

Discussions on Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning focused on the frameworks individual states use to implement their commitments under the International Tracing Instrument (ITI) and the UN Programme of Action (UNPoA) on small arms and light weapons (SALW) more generally. The Chair’s questions for this discussion included: What is required in terms of relevant legislation to affect operations of marking, record keeping, and a tracing system? What steps have states taken to ensure interagency coordination? What role are national ITI focal points playing in member states? Has appointment of these people proved effective, or how could it be enhanced?

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

The Institute for Security Studies (ISS) in South Africa led the discussion by presenting, among other things, gaps and challenges that they have found in national frameworks. Some of these include outdated policy and legislation not in line with ITI; that marking and record keeping is not prioritized by law enforcement in some states; that SALW national action plans contain minimal details on marking and tracing; inadequate marking and recordkeeping administration systems; and insufficient sharing of information between law enforcement and military on SALW issues. ISS also highlighted that its research shows a dissonance between national frameworks and reporting/communication on ITI implementation. The representative noted that when they look at state reports on the ITI it does not appear as if much is being done, but when they investigate specific countries they actually find substantial action has been undertaken on these issues.

In this context, the Japanese delegation noted that it would be helpful to find out why states do not report on their ITI implementation and more importantly, to decipher what benefits reporting actually has on implementation. Japan also mentioned that it would appreciate the distribution of analysis of reporting but emphasized that this is only a starting point and that states need to consider how to make the best use of reports.

ISS included this is in the “good news” portion of the presentation, along with indications that regional approaches and initiatives appear to have strengthened national frameworks and improved communication, even though it’s not reflected in ITI reporting at the moment. ISS also noted that generally, states are increasingly adopting more robust marking and recordkeeping technologies and systems and that INTERPOL’s national and regional bureaus are complementing and supporting national frameworks.

Most delegations gave brief overviews of their national frameworks, citing specific pieces of legislation, cooperative arrangements between agencies in their countries, and particular programmes they have implemented to comply with their commitments under the ITI and UNPoA.

Several delegations noted that they are undergoing a process to ensure their national legislation is in line with such international commitments. Peru’s delegation highlighted its efforts to make its domestic legislation more effective by improving its requirements for marking firearms. Namibia’s delegation reported that its police force has prepared an amendment bill to its national arms and ammunition act, which is ready to be tabled in Parliament, to make it on par with the UNPoA. Jamaica’s representative noted that it is currently overhauling its legislative and administrative structures to facilitate its commitments. To this end, he explained, the government has identified gaps and devised a course of action, which includes developing a national small arms policy and a national small arms commission and replacing its national firearms act with new legislation.

Some delegations highlighted the importance of bring a variety of constituents together to develop national frameworks. Peru’s delegation noted the importance of “organizational culture,” explaining that its public servants require training in order to develop the skills necessary for national coordinator. Guatemala’s delegation explained that its frameworks bring not just government agencies together but also intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, and civil society, which has made it easier for the government to channel cooperation from other countries. Sudan’s delegation also highlighted the need to involve citizens in developing programmes and policies on arms control, such as through awareness raising programmes, arguing, “effective disarmament involves taking these weapons out of our hearts and minds as well as our hands.”

The Sudanese delegate outlined his government’s comprehensive framework for addressing the control of weapons, which also depends on combined programmes for development, the provision of basic services, peacebuilding, and reducing armed violence. Jamaica’s delegation also noted that its national framework is aimed at reducing levels of armed violence.

A few delegations specified areas where development of national frameworks is challenged by international agreements and tools. Canada’s delegation highlighted that it is not opposed to optional provisions in international agreements but that such provisions should be flagged in order to ensure that states understand that not all governments are necessarily signed onto these provisions. Venezuela’s delegation highlighted the importance of availability of information, especially information that is translated into national languages.

The Control Arms campaign is a global civil society alliance that has advocated for a bulletproof Arms Trade Treaty for over a decade. Made up of over 100 charity, nonprofit, and nongovernmental groups throughout the world, Control Arms continues to strive for a world where deadly weapons are kept out of the wrong hands through a regulated arms trade.